Ted:
You've got to be the bravest man I've known about in a long while. You came to THIS forum and declared that digital cinema looked better than film? Wow!

Anyway, to replys...

Brad:
Regarding Digital Cinema: We polled 250 audience members attending the EP1 Digital Presentations, and 85% of them said they liked the Digital Cinema (not video) Presentations better than 35mm film presentations. This 85% better was the audience's opinion, not TAP's. I still like a good, clean film presentation better than a Digital one, any day of the week. But the Digital Cinema Presentations did look much better than I expected them to, and compared to a dirty, scratched print, definitely better. So don't get me confused. I'm a fan of celluloid, and I always will be.

Like I said previously, we at TAP and THX strive to improve the way a film is presented, on all fronts. And, I personally feel, that many theatres have improved their presentations partially because of us. And to quote Rob Hummel, of Technicolor (VP of Digital Technologies Developement), "Many theatres have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps since THX came along, and have improved their presentations so that the gap in quality between THX and non-THX screens has diminished over the yaers." That's not quite a plug for THX... But, it shows how THX has "indirectly" helped the exhibition industry, more than most people think.

Gordon M:
We evaluate Toronto as much as the Exhibitor and Distributor clients want us to... which is not very often. George had us do over 200 Technical Alignments on EP1, all at his expense, so that guys like you, Gordon, would go out and "fix" a theatres' presentation. I just wish the theatres would take it upon themselves to do more of the minimum maintenence requirements to keep these theatres up to snuff. I gotta admit, I hate to see one of our THX Trailers played back with a scratch, a splice, or coated with dirt. And it upsets me to see this because it makes us look bad... when the theatre should take it upon themselves to police their own presentations more responsibly... 'cause we hear the feedback and frankly, it's depressing.

Joe R:
Money, money, money. Is that all we're about? You should look at our books. THX is about improving standards and giving the audience the best possible presentation. If we were about making money, we would lower our standards, and slap a certifications on anyone who wanted it. This is again not the case. If we de-certify a theatre, we don't get paid. If a theatre has us do a feasibility study, and our recommendations are not met, there is no charge, and we do not back down to allow them to be certified. It's simple, we could make a lot more money for George if we would lower our standards. We will not. And that is o'kay with George.

And your comment, "What has Lucas done for you lately?" The answer is simple... more than any other single, creative person anywhere in the industry. And regarding taste in films, which is as subjective as subjectivity gets, when I saw EP1 for the first time, I saw it with George, his son, and one of his daughters... Sure my expectations were through the roof, but to see George watching his kids, watching the movie, it was hard not see the audience he was aiming this film at. He was, in my personal opinion, and not the opinion of Lucasfilm, aiming at a new generation of Star Wars fans... and us old guys were left with our through the roof expectations. Bring your expectations down to earth, and it's a pretty good film (subjectivly speaking, of course).

Mr. Criswell:
First of all, to compare THX to non-THX screens, basing your comparison on ONE, SINGLE, SOLITARY, THX screen, is the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard of, ever. You have got to be kidding. Please! One THX Screen in Alabama is your representation of all of THX... and then you claim that it did not receive the highest score, and thusly, you bash THX. And EVERYTHING you are mentioning in your post is not the fault of THX, but of the theatre management. I don't want to criticize your grading system... oh, why not... You are grading the technician and film handlers at the sites you are grading, not THX. Sorry, but your conclusions are based on bogus and totally unfair comparisons. That is my humble opinion.

And regarding your bashing the THX Digital Mastering Program... again, please!!! Look at the DVD for The Abyss, it is a non-anamorphic title, and it's a great DVD. THX supports the proper aspect ratio for the presentation based on what the studio and the director, the owners of the content, wants it to be. We, at DMP, make the product look as good as it possibly can. And if you, or any consumer, could see the problems we catch and correct, which you never will on a THX DMP title, you would be our biggest fan... I guarentee it. Like a theatrical presentation, we make our DVD and VHS titles look the best they can possibly look, based on what the content owners wish.

That was fun. Kidding.

And I know there will always be THX detractors, but I don't think there is a more positive, presentation improving, benevolent, group out there (other than Film Tech, of course) that cares more about quality and the benefit to the audience than they do about money, than THX. And sure I'm biased, but like my participation on this web site, I do care.

THXfully Yours,
Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program

1. I feel that my comparisons of THX auditoriums with non-THX auditoriums is fair because the data for all the auditoriums were collected in the same manner and an arithmetic average and the standard deviation was calculated for each set. While it is true that the sets are of differing cardinality, both sets are large enough for the averages and standard deviations to be reasonably accurate.

A single screen? Auditoriums 1, 5, 6, and 10 are THX certified at the Carmike 10 and the others are not. I calculated stats for the set containing auds 1, 5, 6, and 10, and stats for the other set. You should say, a single THEATRE, not a single screen. It may a bit unfair to judge THX by one theatre, but it is the only THX certified theatre within nearly 100 miles of this area. The nearest ones are in Birmingham and Nashville, and rating theatres outside by region is not possible unless I got reviewers in each city. Remember that this county has a quarter of a million people, so there are a lot of people that judge THX by the presentations they see at Carmike 10. Please note that my evaluation only applies to my geographic area, so I'm not saying that presentations in non-THX auditoriums are slightly less problematic than THX auditoriums everywhere, just here at this specific theatre in Huntsville. Everyone doesn't live in a huge city with a bunch of theatres to choose from. We used to have 7, and now we have 5. Of our area's 56 screens, we have 4 THX certified screens (at a theatre with 10 screens). Those 10 screens were used in the comparison: 4 THX and 6 non-THX. People expect the 4 THX auditoriums to be the best in town. Sometimes they are; sometimes they're not.

2. Since I made my post about the problems at the Carmike theatre, I've thought and the problem seems to lie mostly with the whole manner in which the company goes about maintaining their equipment. Now, let me say that this theatre that I made these rather harsh statements about is the best facility around (even though it does not have the best projection quality around -- it is second best). With proper maintenance and upkeep, it would be the best theatre around. But suppose something goes awry with the equipment. Let's say that masking is not being positioned properly or a projector becomes misaimed or an aperture plate becomes misaligned. The problem goes unfixed for a very long time. The DTS was out in every showing I attended in one auditorium for nearly a year. The optical sound is terribly muffled in most auditoriums. Why maintain them if all their sound systems are digital, right? Hmmm.... What about trailers that aren't digital, or when the digital soundtrack can't be read?

Shouldn't THX inspections CATCH these problems and shouldn't recertification require that they be fixed to be able to continue to use the THX logo and trailers?

Based on my conversations with staff at that theatre, local theatre staff are not allowed to do much with the projectors, such as correcting aim or aperture plate problems. A technician must be called in for that. The technician that serves them has been nicknamed "the devil" by some of the staff, and the staff say that it is difficult to get the guy to come and fix anything. One staff member told me that this technician told him to never call him again.

The bottom line is that some problems have gone unfixed for more than a year in some auditoriums there. Things got better last spring when the manager found out about my web site. I don't think THX ends with the original inspection. If it did, why have the 1-800-PHONE-THX? I believe that THX was intended to provide some indication that the quality of presentation would be kept high as long as the auditoriums are certified, and not to indicate that the auditoriums met some standards at one point in time in the past.

Anyway, the problem in this specific case lies with the way that Carmike gets their equipment problems resolved. If the most-heard phrase from the staff when talking about the booth is "It's got tape on it", then something is wrong.

I truly believe that the manager of this theatre wants everything to stay fixed, but I get the impression that the next step in the management doesn't always see things that way. A manager of another Carmike theatre said, "I'll get the new aperture plates if my district manager doesn't see the paperwork".

Another problem is that Carmike moves their managers around too much. One Carmike theatre has had 9 managers in the last 3 years. The THX certified one is about to be on its 4th since March 1998. Regal seems to keep their managers in place for much longer periods of time.

I may be drawing for blood by saying some of the things I say, but I'm simply presenting the facts as I see them, and according to what some of the managers and staff members have told me. Look at my description file for the Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur and at the many compliments I listed related to the presentation quality there. That is the level of presentation quality expected from theatres. I praise the manager there every chance I get.

I can visit a theatre 5 times and get a very good idea of what to expect in the future. It is no surprise to me that the ratings become very stable and unchanging after 10 attendances.

3. About the DVDs: I expect THX transfers to be of the best quality possible on the DVD format. A non-anamorphic transfer of a movie 1.78:1 or wider has 25 percent fewer scan lines making up the picture information than an anamorphic transfer. When viewed on a 1.78:1 TV, the picture is inferior to an anamorphic transfer. "The Abyss" did not utilize one of the main features of DVD to improve picture quality and resolution, and this was a scope film, which was screaming for the extra scan lines to be used, because so few were used here.

The point I'm driving at here is at the movie theatre AND in my home theatre, what is the THX certification guaranteeing me at this time as a CUSTOMER? As I see it, nothing, except a guarantee that money has been paid to THX to use a logo and a trailer, and in movie theatres, that auditoriums were built to certain standards and at one time in the past, were in certifiable condition. Is that enough to make me want to choose THX over non-THX? No. If I want the best presentation of a movie, I'll go to auditorium 6 at the Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur, AL, which is non-THX. If I want a movie on DVD, as far as I'm concerned, the THX logo has no bearing on the quality. I don't think that the people at THX want this to be the case.

To raise their standards, they need to evaluate on-screen presentations at certified theatres more often.

>And if you, or any consumer, could see the
>problems we catch and correct, which you >never will on a THX DMP title

Never? How about the soundtrack on the first Tarzan DVD that was corrected in the special edition? Are the new releases of the regular edition Tarzan DVD corrected?

Generalizations are bad.

1) Sorry, that complex only has one THX Certified SCREEN, at that theatre, complex, whatever you want to call it. That is the fact of the matter, and I cannot discuss any of the politics or details of this on a public forum.

2) Like I said about the THX Digital Mastering Program (DMP) previously... they are Gods. That Tarzan "problem" was a creative decision by the content owners, and not something that we have any control over. And besides that, it was not even a "problem", except that the person who did the DVD review had a mis-aligned system, which made the surrounds sound brighter than they were intended to be, again, by the content owners. And regarding generalizations... The THX logo on the DVD means that the content owners wished to go the extra yard for quality by putting their product through our DMP system. And if you want to see a comparison, a true comparison, look at the Army Of Darkness DVD that has the Directors cut (one DVD) and the THX Certified cut (an additional DVD) included in the package. Here, you can see the difference... on other THX titles, you get the corrected, clean, dirt-picked version only.

Also, DMP recently came up with a home system set-up for picture and for sound, a feature called Optimode, which had its debut on the Fight Club DVD. It makes it so a home theatre can be tested, and corrected for color, sound levels, etc., so people won't blame us for problems that are actually with their own system, and not the fault of THX... It also gives the consumer a way to make their viewing environment the way the Director of the film intended it to be.

Rory B:
You must have done a few THX Certifications, because you DO know what you are talking about.

If you want to measure contrast that is done as a ratio with a meter and a test target

You want to rate sharpness then one must use a resolution target film focus of finished prints isn't fair since different titles have many different looks
Picture stability can often be a print issue as well as a machine issue

Sound quality is even harder to rate subjectivly since there is a vast difference between tracks, so a reference test reel is used of quick checks in conjunction with the proper test equipment.

The final product is subjective but to make comparrisions it must have a common reference which would be the same film run in each theatre.
THX's design standards are second to none and the recert process is very though and yes Evan, theatres do get failed.
The test equipment used is some of the most accurate in the business and I can say from experience not cheap to purchase or to maintain in calibration.
No theatre is perfect but the odds are there is a better standard in a THX theatre than in many others.

I will no longer comment on the DVDs because I have my opinions on that matter (based on simple math) and this is a film forum and not a DVD forum. Removal of the THX vs. non-THX page will also remove the DVD comments, and there are no statements analyzing THX from a quality standpoint anywhere else in the site.

For Ted: I really do not understand why information about THX has to be of such a proprietary nature. It is no wonder that there is so much misinformation floating around out there, because so few people have access to accurate information concerning THX. While making all of the information proprietary guarantees that no other certification institution can copy your standards and procedures, it makes it very difficult for anyone to accurately answer the question "What is THX and what do they actually do?"

From now on, I will use the phrase "advertised as THX" in the sound column when I review a presentation in an auditorium, since I have no way of knowing that the auditorium may have been decertified.

On my movie theatre review site, I try to make it clear how and why I grade in various ways. I don't want any details hidden, so that if others see flaws in my methods, they may comment on them, so that we all may learn from it. I'll happily answer any technical questions concerning how I deduct for various problems and how I calculate things. I don't want my ratings system to be a big mysterious box that few people understand, as has happened with THX with the general public.

As always, questions about my site are welcome, as are suggestions for improvement. I know it needs a cosmetic facelift, but if anyone on this forum finds ONE PIECE of information that is incorrect or unfair, I want to know about it.

When I registered for this forum back in March, it was the first occasion that the site had been turned over for review by some of the best people in the industry. I expected some negative feedback on various things, and welcome such feedback again.

Evans A Criswell http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

You are correct in that the notes made are based on observations that can be made by customers.

I only deduct for a problem if I notice the problem during a presentation. I cannot measure the actual focus, but I can tell if a presentation is too much out-of-focus, and only deduct if I am certain that the focus needed adjustment.

For contrast, if I notice bright areas bleeding into dark area, I deduct. Credits (white letters on a black background) are a good part of the presentation in which to check contrast.

I run my eyes around the edges of the screen and see if the image are sharp, or if any fade out before touching the black masking. Often, the image goes black several inches before reaching the masking. I don't need an instrument for that.

On misframing, if I notice it, I deduct, and only deduct if I'm sure.

In short, I deduct for things that are bad enough to be detected without the aid of instruments. For example, if all the dialog coming from the surround channels and nothing from the screen, I don't need an instrument. If the sound is muffled and distorted or changes frequently from DTS to optical, no instrument is needed.

My system works, and I challenge anyone to monitor the quality of the 5 theatres in my area and grade them, and I'll bet, instruments or not, your results will be similar to mine.

Oh yes, and Ted...I still say you guys were comparing Phantom prints to DLP at shitty theaters! Have you ever considered making a section on the THX website of "de-certified theaters"? Talk about a black list people wouldn't want to get on! Perhaps that just might make people care a bit more about what they are doing. There is nothing more annoying than to go to a theater that is advertising THX and getting a MONO presentation. It happens a lot and I hope those offending theaters are horribly fined. After all THX is still THE audio system available today for the cinema industry. Nothing else even comes remotely close.

>After all THX is still THE audio system >available today for the cinema industry. >Nothing else even comes remotely close.

THX is not an audio system. From the THX web site:
"THX does not manufacture or sell equipment. Rather, we conduct formal testing of manufacturers' equipment using THX performance specifications to determine the acceptability of installation in a THX certified theatre."

I don't think you'll get a list of decertified theatres from THX. Some theatres whose quality has not lapsed may choose to not pay the cost of recertification, and it would not really be fair to put those theatres on such a list.

Gordon:

>The level of error you are talking about >does not need instrumentation but Should
>not be the norm.

Well, in the theatres in my area, it often is. In fact, the averages tell you what the norm is. For example, if a theatre's rating is 96 and none of that 96 is due to a facility deduction, then the "norm" is to have 4 points worth of problems in the average presentation.

>Also since to err is human and theatres are
>run by humans it would be wise to average
>the flaws over a period of time to null out
>accidents.

That's exactly what happens. One presentation's score does not have a large effect on a facility's rating, but several bad (or good) presentations would have a noticeable effect. All theatres in operation have at least 41 scores now. Scores "age-off" after 4 years, and the weight is 1 - (number of years old / 4). For example, after 6 months, a score carries a weight of 1 - (0.5 / 4), or 0.875 . After 4 years, the weight is zero. In the future, I may implement the dropping of the lowest score (like some school teachers do).

Rory:

>Evan C wrote: ("For example, if all the
>dialog coming from the surround channels
>and nothing from the screen...") How do
>you know that the dialogue wasn't intended
>to come from just the surrounds ( ie.
>someone thinking)

I have sense enough to know when the "dialog through the surrounds" is being intentionally done. If the problem occurs during the entire movie and all the previews, that's a big clue right there. I've seen some of these movies twice, and the sound would be correct in the other showing. No movie I've ever seen had ALL of the dialog and sound coming from the surrounds only! If a movie were made this way, the oddity would be thoroughly discussed in public forums or USENET groups.

>How can you tell if proper contrast/brightness is
>the way it should be.

The old fashioned way: Look. (see bad one-liners thread (X-Men)) It's true that I won't catch every problem, but I will catch cases where contast is so low that practically anyone would notice. Like I said earlier, seeing if the black on the credits stays black when the white letters are floating by gives a good indication. Also, this is a good time to check for shutter ghosting. If the problem is bad enough to see, why would instruments be needed?

>Did you know that focusing the lens isn't
>the only thing that can be done to adjust
>the picture.

No, I didn't. I never even gave anything else a thought. I thought adjusting the focus would magically fix misframings, reflector alignment, dirty optics, shutter ghosting, film loaded backwards, misaimed and misaligned projectors, broken dousers falling partially shut during movies, flickering lamps that need replacing, and all sorts of other things. Pardon me for having that misconception.

>How about gate tension, shutter timing, and >even focusing the bulb.

Is the problem bad enough to see and be distracting on the screen? If so, I deduct for it. I've deducted for excessive jitter and excessive nonuniform screen illumination on several occasions. Do you want references to them? Oh, and I thought those problems could be focused out.

>("If the sound is muffled and distorted or
>changes frequently from DTS to optical, no
>instrument is needed.") Is the a-chain ok?
>Is the masking closed when it should be
>opened? Reverting from DTS to analog?

Does it matter? The fact is that a deduction is applied for too many distracting changes from DTS to optical during a movie, regardless of what is causing it. The more noticeable the switches to optical, the more severe he deduction, regardless of the cause.

>Usually that happens with SDDS and not with
>DTS but assuming

We don't have SDDS anywhere in Huntsville. We have DTS, Dolby Digital, and standard optical Dolby Stereo, except for one mono house in one theatre.

>is the print clean?

Usually, yes, but if I see excessive scratches or dirt build up, I'll deduct. I've deducted for this before.

>Your grading for comparing THX to non THX is very subjective.

No, it wasn't. The grading of individual presentations can get a little subjective at times, but the THX analysis was purely mechanically generated, based on pure unweighted averages and standard deviations of the individual presentation scores. It's a non-issue now, since I got rid of it this morning, since Carmike's advertisements and Ted Costas do not agree on which auditoriums are THX certified (quite disturbing, by the way). That is a legitimate reason to pull the analysis. I could simply change it to "large auditoriums (40+ feet) vs. small auditoriums (30 feet)" at that theatre and not change a single number, and leave it intact, and never mention THX, but I probably won't do that. I'd probably get attacked by the Association for Large Auditoriums.

>How does the typical visitor to your web
>site even know that you are providing
>accurate data? (It seems that only one
>screen is actually certified so the rest
>of the data is wrong)

How do you know that anyone gives out accurate information? You have some degree of trust. It seems that Carmike is advertising 4 THX auditoriums at Carmike 10 here in town. According to Ted, that's not correct. Do you want me to email you a scan of today's newspaper ad for the location? It has in nice big letters: "FOUR THX AUDITORIUMS". Four, four, four! As long as I felt my information was correct about the THX auditoriums, I stood by it, until I found out that a normally reliable source of information was incorrect, then I did not hesitate to drop it.

By the way, THX has never had ANY effect on a grade given to a presentation. As far as my ratings are concerned, it's a non-issue.

>After all, (correct me if i am wrong; thought i read that up there
>somewhere) you do work for the competition.

Huh? What competition? It would be a severe conflict of interest if I worked for the very theatres that I was evaluating! Come on!

I've taken a fairly thorough beating here, which I kind of expected. I'm doing something that is fairly unique. Restaurant reviews and movie reviews pop up all over the place and people don't seem to get their feathers all ruffled over them. It shows that reviewing theatres is a very touchy subject, even more touchy than I imagined. It is interesting that nobody ever discussed my site until I brought up the THX issue. Before that, I think I received exactly one email from one person on this forum (or maybe it was from a rec.arts.movies.tech participant -- I can't remember). I guess from the standpoint of a theatre manger, it isn't a likable thing, which I understand. I'm surprised that everyone waited until the THX issue was brought up to jump me instead of doing it back in March when I first mentioned the site.

I think when I say THX sound system that people know what I mean. In fact, I believe it even says that exact same wording on the trailers.

I understand that each screen is suppose to be recertified every year. The chain I do service for has only had a few of its screens recertified. The last time THX guys were in our Oakland theatre was to install a beta version of the new monitor/Xover. The theatre is nearing 5 years old. The Santa Cruz theatres haven't been recertified either.

And if you were not around in 1983 when George did the TAP program for "Return" let me tell you: he gave away *a lot* of tech work (to the theaters) for free. Sure, he did it so his film would look good, but every film after that also benefited (and a lot of operators, too!)

I know that was 18 years ago, but even today no one else goes through this effort. While TAP doesn't go to theaters anymore (rarely anyway) they still give away good, free advise. And even if you are working in a non-THX theater and were running a non-TAP film, they still will pick-up the phone and answer any tech question they can to help you out. I know because I've done it (I talked to a guy named Tim S.) Studios don't even do that for their own product.

I think Chris has a great site. I think the grading of screens are fair (although as Gordon pointed out, not with measuring tools.) But I do think there's not enough THX screens to use as a statistical sample, especially since they are all operated by the same people!

And Gordon is also right; THX/TAP is not perfect, but it's the best thing going by far.

To me, the real beauty of THX is the architectural modifications. While an owner may cheapen out later and replace good speakers with junk, he can't remove the noise-canceling insulated ducting, the isolation mounts on the AC compressors, wall sound proofing, etc, etc. The expensive stuff an owner would never do after the place is finished can't be undone.